About time!

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Dr. Evil on Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:37 pm

BladeRunner wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:We now have a protected class of people based on the "choices" they make.

Welcome to America.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." ~Lenin

You want to know what has really destroyed the family in America?  The fact that mom and dad aren't home.  

I couldn't agree more with your statement. And in the case of homos getting married, either a mom or a dad isn't home. Hence, how it destroys the family, and thus, the country.

Dr. Jones wrote: They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.[/color]


LOL...yes. let's blame evil corporations. Don't look at the feminist movement that tells women they are less important if they stay home instead of persueing a "career" as having part of the blame of women "choosing" to work.

Cute, but my point is that there are no parents there to raise their children.

What does the women's movement have to do with the fact that a working couple can't provide for their family as a single paycheck did a couple generations ago?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3477
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Skeptical on Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:57 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:     They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.

Do you really think it is all the fault of capitalism as you claim??


avatar
Skeptical

Posts : 2565
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : Right here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  BladeRunner on Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:22 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:We now have a protected class of people based on the "choices" they make.

Welcome to America.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." ~Lenin

You want to know what has really destroyed the family in America?  The fact that mom and dad aren't home.  

I couldn't agree more with your statement. And in the case of homos getting married, either a mom or a dad isn't home. Hence, how it destroys the family, and thus, the country.

Dr. Jones wrote: They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.[/color]


LOL...yes. let's blame evil corporations. Don't look at the feminist movement that tells women they are less important if they stay home instead of persueing a "career" as having part of the blame of women "choosing" to work.

Cute, but my point is that there are no parents there to raise their children.  

What does the women's movement have to do with the fact that a working couple can't provide for their family as a single paycheck did a couple generations ago?

Are you seriously this stupid?

avatar
BladeRunner

Posts : 1916
Join date : 2012-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:48 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:We now have a protected class of people based on the "choices" they make.

Welcome to America.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." ~Lenin

Homosexual marriage has no more ability to destroy the family than heterosexual marriage.  It's all in the way you conduct yourself toward your spouse and children.

You want to know what has really destroyed the family in America?  The fact that mom and dad aren't home.  They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.

Right. And record high federal, state and local property taxes had not thing to do with having to have multiple bread winners and multiple jobs to pay the confiscatory taxes. You know the clown car that passed you had a flat tire about a mile down the road. If you hurry you might be able to catch up.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  nightlight88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:50 pm

BladeRunner wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
BladeRunner wrote:We now have a protected class of people based on the "choices" they make.

Welcome to America.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." ~Lenin

You want to know what has really destroyed the family in America?  The fact that mom and dad aren't home.  

I couldn't agree more with your statement. And in the case of homos getting married, either a mom or a dad isn't home. Hence, how it destroys the family, and thus, the country.

Dr. Jones wrote: They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.[/color]


LOL...yes. let's blame evil corporations. Don't look at the feminist movement that tells women they are less important if they stay home instead of persueing a "career" as having part of the blame of women "choosing" to work.

Cute, but my point is that there are no parents there to raise their children.  

What does the women's movement have to do with the fact that a working couple can't provide for their family as a single paycheck did a couple generations ago?

Are you seriously this stupid?



Can I answer that for him?


YES
avatar
nightlight88

Posts : 1680
Join date : 2012-12-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:05 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Rick Scarborough wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:You not only know anything about Judicial activism but you know nothing about the Bible either. Please cite the passage where interracial marriage is forbidden.

Ask Bob Jones University, they're the ones who took that idiotic argument all the way to the supreme court. Try to follow along, I didn't claim that the bible forbids interracial marriage, BJ University did.

Darth Cheney wrote:Then you can cite where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says gays can be married. You get your knowledge from the Jon Stewart Late Show and know nothing of fact...keep voting democrat.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/06/obergefell-v-hodges-gay-marriage-decision-full-text/

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem...where in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS does it say gays can be married?

The Supreme's weren't acting on Constitutional precedence but rather their feelings (activist ruling)...are you beginning to understand? Before you spout off with more mindless drivel, talk with someone much smarter than you and have them read my question.

Where does the constitution say anyone should be allowed to marry?  By your logic no marriage should be legal.

Check out the 10th Amendment fcukstick.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This decision fabricates law outside the legislative process and infringes on the State's regulation powers. Even John "Whiplash" Roberts understood this, although he must have had a senior moment in King v Burwell.


I love how conservatives like to rape and pillage the tenth amendment whenever they don't get their way.  This is very clearly defined by the first amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

Most organized religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but other than that there is no basis for anything.  Since the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion" the buck stops there.


Seriously? You are making the argument that Obergefell v. Hodges was about establishment of religion? Not even the same sex proponents made that argument. Justice Kennedy found his "fundamental right" somewhere in the swamp of the 14th amendment substantive due process clause. And Kennedy only made a reference to it in his majority opinion as a "promise" that believers and religions would be protected if they didn't condone gay marriage. In fact the dissenting justices warned explicitly that this ruling does not protect religion.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:45 pm

Harold Covington wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:You obviously need to stay more nights at Holiday Inn Express in order to hone your severely deficient Constitutional scholar skills.

The equating of "gay rights" to Civil Rights not only insulting to and diminish Blacks and minorities but is also intellectually dishonest.

In Loving vs Virginia, both husband and wife were legally married in Washington DC but upon returning to Virginia were convicted and sentenced to 1 year in prison. Name the one married gay couple who spent one day in jail for being married. Gay marriage has never been illegal as is often claimed, it's just not recognized or solemnized by the various States.

In Brown vs Board of Education, SCOTUS held that a Jim Crow segregation law deprived minorities of equal education opportunities. Any benefits denied same sex couples is the fault of the various estate laws and Social Security regulations not the definition of tradition marriage.

The casus belli of the Civil War was mainly fiscal policies and tariffs imposed on the South by the North. Slavery was a protected institution in the Constitution. On the verge of losing the War, Lincoln turned the war into a moral cause with his Emancipation Proclamation even though he himself was against mixing the races and proposed shipping all Blacks to other countries. And least you forget, the North claimed states rights just as the South did with their nullification of Federal fugitive slave laws which required the return of escaped slaves.

You took a long time burning up the interwebs to come up with that, too bad it doesn't even come close to addressing what I said.

But your last paragraph is interesting. It's an oft repeated argument that is pure rubbish and only a willfully ignorant pile of applesauce could say that with a straight face.

One look at the secessionists own words in the articles of secession and the cornerstone address proves your ridiculous claim to be laughably ignorant. They do mention that "slavery was a protected institution in the Constitution" and virtually everything else they said revolved around their "right" to own slaves. Reading through the declarations of secession, you'll find almost nothing that doesn't center around that "right". The corner stone speech reaches a little further but says in no uncertain terms that slavery is the primary, "immediate cause" for leaving the Union.

Cornerstone Speech:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

The Cornerstone address is considered by many Civil War historians as a insignificant event prior to hostilities. President Jefferson Davis even disavowed it which might help explain some of the animosity felt between Davis and Vide-President Stephens. That and the fact that Stephens was not even pro-secession. Still even a complete reading of the address finds the part you left out talking about the Tariff of Abomination and the Whig party's obsession with internal improvements:

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ...."

There's no doubt that Southern slave owners felt that slavery was important to their economy. But the movement globally towards Capitalism had already doomed the inefficient slave economy in the South and it was only a matter of time before the slave economy would collapse. Ironically it was Lincoln and the Republican (reborn Whigs) party that gave the secessionist movement a boost with the imposition of punishing tariffs. In fact if Lincoln had offered to buy the slaves from the slave owners as he did in his Second Address to Congress in December of 1862 prior to the war the whole bloody mess may have been avoided. But Lincoln desired a strong central government and the Whig policy of the American System and come hell or high water he was bound to have it.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Dr. Evil on Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:03 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Rick Scarborough wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:You not only know anything about Judicial activism but you know nothing about the Bible either. Please cite the passage where interracial marriage is forbidden.

Ask Bob Jones University, they're the ones who took that idiotic argument all the way to the supreme court. Try to follow along, I didn't claim that the bible forbids interracial marriage, BJ University did.

Darth Cheney wrote:Then you can cite where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says gays can be married. You get your knowledge from the Jon Stewart Late Show and know nothing of fact...keep voting democrat.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/06/obergefell-v-hodges-gay-marriage-decision-full-text/

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem...where in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS does it say gays can be married?

The Supreme's weren't acting on Constitutional precedence but rather their feelings (activist ruling)...are you beginning to understand? Before you spout off with more mindless drivel, talk with someone much smarter than you and have them read my question.

Where does the constitution say anyone should be allowed to marry?  By your logic no marriage should be legal.

Check out the 10th Amendment fcukstick.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This decision fabricates law outside the legislative process and infringes on the State's regulation powers. Even John "Whiplash" Roberts understood this, although he must have had a senior moment in King v Burwell.


I love how conservatives like to rape and pillage the tenth amendment whenever they don't get their way.  This is very clearly defined by the first amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

Most organized religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but other than that there is no basis for anything.  Since the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion" the buck stops there.


Seriously? You are making the argument that Obergefell v. Hodges was about establishment of religion? Not even the same sex proponents made that argument. Justice Kennedy found his "fundamental right" somewhere in the swamp of the 14th amendment substantive due process clause.  And Kennedy only made a reference to it in his majority opinion as a "promise" that believers and religions would be protected if they didn't condone gay marriage. In fact the dissenting justices warned explicitly that this ruling does not protect religion.

WOW!!!  affraid affraid affraid  You got your bags all packed, but no idea where the hell you are going bounce bounce bounce

The Fourteenth Amendment houses something called the "Incorporation Doctrine".  Back when we abolished slavery there were people, like minded to yourself, that didn't think that individual states had to abide by the constitution if they didn't like what it said.  They wrote laws in a particular manner in an attempt to circumvent the constitution.  The North wrote the Fourteenth Amendment,  the "due process" clause in particular, to add some teeth to the original Bill of Rights and would not allow Southern states representation without agreeing to it.  This amendment is still widely used today in lieu of the proper verbiage because of people like yourself who have no respect for the constitution.

study  study  study  study  study  study
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3477
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:17 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Rick Scarborough wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:You not only know anything about Judicial activism but you know nothing about the Bible either. Please cite the passage where interracial marriage is forbidden.

Ask Bob Jones University, they're the ones who took that idiotic argument all the way to the supreme court. Try to follow along, I didn't claim that the bible forbids interracial marriage, BJ University did.

Darth Cheney wrote:Then you can cite where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says gays can be married. You get your knowledge from the Jon Stewart Late Show and know nothing of fact...keep voting democrat.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/06/obergefell-v-hodges-gay-marriage-decision-full-text/

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem...where in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS does it say gays can be married?

The Supreme's weren't acting on Constitutional precedence but rather their feelings (activist ruling)...are you beginning to understand? Before you spout off with more mindless drivel, talk with someone much smarter than you and have them read my question.

Where does the constitution say anyone should be allowed to marry?  By your logic no marriage should be legal.

Check out the 10th Amendment fcukstick.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This decision fabricates law outside the legislative process and infringes on the State's regulation powers. Even John "Whiplash" Roberts understood this, although he must have had a senior moment in King v Burwell.


I love how conservatives like to rape and pillage the tenth amendment whenever they don't get their way.  This is very clearly defined by the first amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

Most organized religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but other than that there is no basis for anything.  Since the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion" the buck stops there.


Seriously? You are making the argument that Obergefell v. Hodges was about establishment of religion? Not even the same sex proponents made that argument. Justice Kennedy found his "fundamental right" somewhere in the swamp of the 14th amendment substantive due process clause.  And Kennedy only made a reference to it in his majority opinion as a "promise" that believers and religions would be protected if they didn't condone gay marriage. In fact the dissenting justices warned explicitly that this ruling does not protect religion.

WOW!!!  affraid affraid affraid  You got your bags all packed, but no idea where the hell you are going bounce bounce bounce

The Fourteenth Amendment houses something called the "Incorporation Doctrine".  Back when we abolished slavery there were people, like minded to yourself, that didn't think that individual states had to abide by the constitution if they didn't like what it said.  They wrote laws in a particular manner in an attempt to circumvent the constitution.  The North wrote the Fourteenth Amendment,  the "due process" clause in particular, to add some teeth to the original Bill of Rights and would not allow Southern states representation without agreeing to it.  This amendment is still widely used today in lieu of the proper verbiage because of people like yourself who have no respect for the constitution.

study  study  study  study  study  study
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Oh joy and rapture, says the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz trying out his newly discovered brain cell. Hay Zeus, you sound like you graduated from the University of Phoenix Paralegal 18 week Constitutional Law program summa cum plug-nickel.

While there's no doubt that the incorporation doctrine covers the 1st Amendment's right of religious liberty/establishment clause, it also covers the 5th amendment's due process clause which is where Kennedy found part of the justification for his opinion along with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The religious liberty/establishment clause had nothing to do with this ruling. Nothing. Hell it wasn't even one of the two questions that oral arguments were specifically restricted to by the SCOTUS.

What is sad is this case could have easily been decided on the Full Faith and Credit clause (which was one of the questions) which would have required states to recognize same sex marriage from other states and overturn the remaining section of the Defense of Marriage Act but Kennedy decided to play legislator and craft a new right from the swamp fever of the 14th Amendment and require all states to issue marriage licenses in same sex marriages. That is what Scalia is referring to when he warns that this decision is bad for democracy.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Dr. Evil on Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:44 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:
Rick Scarborough wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:You not only know anything about Judicial activism but you know nothing about the Bible either. Please cite the passage where interracial marriage is forbidden.

Ask Bob Jones University, they're the ones who took that idiotic argument all the way to the supreme court. Try to follow along, I didn't claim that the bible forbids interracial marriage, BJ University did.

Darth Cheney wrote:Then you can cite where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says gays can be married. You get your knowledge from the Jon Stewart Late Show and know nothing of fact...keep voting democrat.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/06/obergefell-v-hodges-gay-marriage-decision-full-text/

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem...where in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS does it say gays can be married?

The Supreme's weren't acting on Constitutional precedence but rather their feelings (activist ruling)...are you beginning to understand? Before you spout off with more mindless drivel, talk with someone much smarter than you and have them read my question.

Where does the constitution say anyone should be allowed to marry?  By your logic no marriage should be legal.

Check out the 10th Amendment fcukstick.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This decision fabricates law outside the legislative process and infringes on the State's regulation powers. Even John "Whiplash" Roberts understood this, although he must have had a senior moment in King v Burwell.


I love how conservatives like to rape and pillage the tenth amendment whenever they don't get their way.  This is very clearly defined by the first amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

Most organized religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but other than that there is no basis for anything.  Since the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion" the buck stops there.


Seriously? You are making the argument that Obergefell v. Hodges was about establishment of religion? Not even the same sex proponents made that argument. Justice Kennedy found his "fundamental right" somewhere in the swamp of the 14th amendment substantive due process clause.  And Kennedy only made a reference to it in his majority opinion as a "promise" that believers and religions would be protected if they didn't condone gay marriage. In fact the dissenting justices warned explicitly that this ruling does not protect religion.

WOW!!!  affraid affraid affraid  You got your bags all packed, but no idea where the hell you are going bounce bounce bounce

The Fourteenth Amendment houses something called the "Incorporation Doctrine".  Back when we abolished slavery there were people, like minded to yourself, that didn't think that individual states had to abide by the constitution if they didn't like what it said.  They wrote laws in a particular manner in an attempt to circumvent the constitution.  The North wrote the Fourteenth Amendment,  the "due process" clause in particular, to add some teeth to the original Bill of Rights and would not allow Southern states representation without agreeing to it.  This amendment is still widely used today in lieu of the proper verbiage because of people like yourself who have no respect for the constitution.

study  study  study  study  study  study
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Oh joy and rapture, says the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz trying out his newly discovered brain cell. Hay Zeus, you sound like you graduated from the University of Phoenix Paralegal 18 week Constitutional Law program summa cum plug-nickel.

While there's no doubt that the incorporation doctrine covers the 1st Amendment's right of religious liberty/establishment clause, it also covers the 5th amendment's due process clause which is where Kennedy found part of the justification for his opinion along with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The religious liberty/establishment clause had nothing to do with this ruling. Nothing. Hell it wasn't even one of the two questions that oral arguments were specifically restricted to by the SCOTUS.

What is sad is this case could have easily been decided on the Full Faith and Credit clause (which was one of the questions) which would have required states to recognize same sex marriage from other states and overturn the remaining section of the Defense of Marriage Act but Kennedy decided to play legislator and craft a new right from the swamp fever of the 14th Amendment and require all states to issue marriage licenses in same sex marriages. That is what Scalia is referring to when he warns that this decision is bad for democracy.

Due process deals with the application of fundamental law.  There is no doubt that this case was based more in application than fundamentals, and it was ruled on accordingly.  But without fundamentals there is nothing to apply.  Kennedy was very clear on the fundamentals of this case:

The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Everybody is encouraged to hold tight to their own religious beliefs on gay marriage, but the constitution does not permit the State to have an opinion.  Just that simple.

I truly wish that we would quit pussy footing around on this by pitching sweeps around the outside with this due process b.s., and just take it straight up the gut on freedom of religion.  We end up in the end zone either way.

Unfortunately for that albatross Antonin "Barrel of Applesauce" Scalia, being in the minority, again, makes his opinion worth little more than the paper it is printed on.  Probably better that way....


Last edited by Dr. Jones on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:56 am; edited 4 times in total
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3477
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Rusty Houser on Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:19 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:The Cornerstone address is considered by many Civil War historians as a insignificant event prior to hostilities. President Jefferson Davis even disavowed it which might help explain some of the animosity felt between Davis and Vide-President Stephens. That and the fact that Stephens was not even pro-secession. Still even a complete reading of the address finds the part you left out talking about the Tariff of Abomination and the Whig party's obsession with internal improvements:

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ...."

There's no doubt that Southern slave owners felt that slavery was important to their economy. But the movement globally towards Capitalism had already doomed the inefficient slave economy in the South and it was only a matter of time before the slave economy would collapse. Ironically it was Lincoln and the Republican (reborn Whigs) party that gave the secessionist movement a boost with the imposition of punishing tariffs. In fact if Lincoln had offered to buy the slaves from the slave owners as he did in his Second Address to Congress in December of 1862 prior to the war the whole bloody mess may have been avoided. But Lincoln desired a strong central government and the Whig policy of the American System and come hell or high water he was bound to have it.

It took you two days to come up with a weak response like that?

Ok, throw out the Cornerstone speech because "jeffy didn't like him" but you'd have to ignore the "Declarations of the Immediate Causes" from the states that say the same thing along with countless other contemporary sources that all state that their main issue was protecting and expanding slavery. In fact, that was jeffy's main focus while he was in the US congress.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

"the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

"She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

Rusty Houser

Posts : 600
Join date : 2014-03-03
Location : Right Behind You.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Darth Cheney on Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:03 pm

In retrospect...I wish our ancestors had picked their own cotton.
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3252
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Rusty Houser on Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:13 pm

Darth Cheney wrote:In retrospect...I wish our ancestors had picked their own cotton.

I'm guessing there would be one hell of a lot of people that would agree with you.

But no, those self entitled southern democrats were too damn lazy to work and such poor businessmen that they couldn't afford to stay in business without free labor. They were a pathetic lot weren't they?

Rusty Houser

Posts : 600
Join date : 2014-03-03
Location : Right Behind You.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Dr. Evil on Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:51 pm

And so it begin...

For some officials, faith overrules same-sex marriage ruling
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-ruling-holdouts/index.html

Now what.  I certainly think they are well within their rights to refuse on religious grounds.  But does that make them incapable of performing their duty at their job? Is it even legal for them to do so?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3477
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Rusty Houser on Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:01 pm

As predicted, the persecution of ministers has begun.


Last edited by Harold Covington on Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

Rusty Houser

Posts : 600
Join date : 2014-03-03
Location : Right Behind You.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Darth Cheney on Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:01 pm

Harold Covington wrote:
Darth Cheney wrote:In retrospect...I wish our ancestors had picked their own cotton.

I'm guessing there would be one hell of a lot of people that would agree with you.

But no, those self entitled southern democrats were too damn lazy to work and such poor businessmen that they couldn't afford to stay in business without free labor. They were a pathetic lot weren't they?

For a moment I thought you were describing Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson, etc., etc.

Yes they are!
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3252
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Jammer on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:40 pm

Harold Covington wrote:


But no, those self entitled southern democrats were too damn lazy to work and such poor businessmen that they couldn't afford to stay in business without free labor. They were a pathetic lot weren't they?  

You are absolutely correct in saying that all democrats are disgusting despicable cretins whether they are living today or lived 150 years ago.  It doesn’t make a difference if they are southern democrats, northern democrats, eastern democrats or western democrats, they are all disgusting despicable cretins who feel entitled and are too lazy to work.

You comment about slavery being “free” labor however indicates that you really don’t understand the issue.  Owning slaves was not a “cheap” proposition.  In fact, slave owners were a minority and were typically the elitists of the day.

Times have not really changed.  The liberals of the 1800’s were the elitists who owned slaves and benefited from the hard work they performed.  They provided for the slaves who in return for this care worked incredibly long hours in difficult conditions for their masters.

It is not that much different today.  The liberals reluctantly had to give up direct slave ownership however they didn’t relinquish the bonds that held these people in servitude.  The liberals soon learned they could do the same thing through political means.  The liberals crafted liberal programs which have kept slaves indebted to them.  Today these liberal elitists use taxpayer money to “care” for these people who in return vote for them and keep them in power thus ensuring the elitists remain elite.

As long as there are liberals in the world, there will be evil in the world.


Last edited by Jammer on Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Jammer

Posts : 2117
Join date : 2013-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Jammer on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:58 pm

A dumbass liberal wrote:   I don't know if you heard this or not, but they made it very clear that churches would not be forced to marry anyone. You know, part of that whole "freedom of religion" thing.    

You can go ahead and file that one away with "if you like your healthcare insurance, you can keep your healthcare insurance.


The same dumbass liberal also wrote:    It has everything to do with the fact that the do's and dont's of marriage are strictly a religious argument,     

There is a civil component in this issue.  There are reams of data that show crime goes up, education goes down, drug use goes up, poverty increases and a host of other societal ills increase when the traditional family is removed from raising a child.  This is just one more attempt by the progressive liberals to destroy the traditional family and thus destroy our society and our country.

These people are pure evil.
avatar
Jammer

Posts : 2117
Join date : 2013-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Rusty Houser on Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:31 am

Jammer wrote:The liberals of the 1800’s...

You think the southern democrats were liberal?

Well ain't you special.


Rusty Houser

Posts : 600
Join date : 2014-03-03
Location : Right Behind You.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  BladeRunner on Wed Jul 01, 2015 8:27 am

Jammer wrote:
There is a civil component in this issue.  There are reams of data that show crime goes up, education goes down, drug use goes up, poverty increases and a host of other societal ills increase when the traditional family is removed from raising a child.  This is just one more attempt by the progressive liberals to destroy the traditional family and thus destroy our society and our country.

These people are pure evil.

True dat......

avatar
BladeRunner

Posts : 1916
Join date : 2012-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  BladeRunner on Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:51 am

Dr. Jones wrote:And so it begin...

For some officials, faith overrules same-sex marriage ruling
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-ruling-holdouts/index.html

Now what.  I certainly think they are well within their rights to refuse on religious grounds.  But does that make them incapable of performing their duty at their job?  Is it even legal for them to do so?

You're are naive if you think same-sex marriage is the end game for them.....

http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/06/lgbt-activists-marriage-was-never-the-end-game/

avatar
BladeRunner

Posts : 1916
Join date : 2012-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Clicker on Wed Jul 01, 2015 10:52 am

Harold Covington wrote:
Jammer wrote:The liberals of the 1800’s...

You think the southern democrats were liberal?

Well ain't you special.


The old Southern Dems were not Liberal. They were more for the land owner and business operators, who kept them in office. During the depression they gained power in the south while losing in the north. Then the great upheaval during the "great society" days where Dems in droves turned coat and became Repubicans in order to keep their jobs in the face of a rapidly changing liberalizing of their party. These are the people who earned the title "Neo-Con" that the libs are so fond of bandying about. The loonie left tries hard to label any Conservative as a neocon like it is a bad word like "Liberal" but that isn't true and most people know it.
avatar
Clicker

Posts : 821
Join date : 2012-12-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Jammer on Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:26 pm

Harold Covington wrote:
Jammer wrote:The liberals of the 1800’s...

You think the southern democrats were liberal?

Well ain't you special.



I am far from being special.  However, I am one of a shrinking group of Americans who have not fallen for the liberals’ revisionist history being taught in our schools or their outright deceptive lies that try to conceal their true agenda and identity.  I long for the day that more Americans wake up to the evil being spread by the progressive liberals in this country.

The following tells the story quite well in regards to the details in question.

http://russp.us/racism.htm

You on the other hand are either pure evil or just plain stupid.  It doesn’t really matter which, you are of zero value to a civil society in this country.

Today’s liberals have pushed this country to a point of irreconcilable differences not seen since they last time they did it in 1860.  And unfortunately the 1860 incident did not end well and I am afraid this country is headed for the same turmoil the liberals caused so long ago.

The liberal southern plantation owners were the elite of southern society in 1860.  They found a way to get the population of the southern states to fight a Civil Way to protect slavery and their claim to elitism even though many of them were not slave owners or maybe even embraced the concept of slavery.  I guess they were just the “useful idiots” of their day.

Today the southern plantation owners have been replaced by the progressive liberal hedge fund managers as the elite of our society.  And while Republicans thwarted the earlier attempts by liberals to enslave Negros and force them to pick cotton, liberals have found an alternative way to keep the Black race subjective to them.  It has been a wave of progressive liberal welfare programs going back to FDR and culminating with LBJ’s Great Society that have kept the Blacks in this country “beholden” to their masters (the liberals).
avatar
Jammer

Posts : 2117
Join date : 2013-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Dr. Evil on Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:38 pm

Jammer wrote:
A dumbass liberal wrote:   I don't know if you heard this or not, but they made it very clear that churches would not be forced to marry anyone. You know, part of that whole "freedom of religion" thing.    

You can go ahead and file that one away with "if you like your healthcare insurance, you can keep your healthcare insurance.

I think you need to reacquaint yourself with how the constitution works.

The same dumbass liberal also wrote:    It has everything to do with the fact that the do's and dont's of marriage are strictly a religious argument,     

There is a civil component in this issue.  There are reams of data that show crime goes up, education goes down, drug use goes up, poverty increases and a host of other societal ills increase when the traditional family is removed from raising a child.  This is just one more attempt by the progressive liberals to destroy the traditional family and thus destroy our society and our country.

These people are pure evil.

I would love to see these reams of information on how non-traditional families have a poor record on raising children.  There's no doubt that coming from a broken home is hard on a child, but what we are talking about is far from a broken home.  What is a "traditional family"?  One where the husband goes to the bar, gets drunk, and spouts off about how "queers" are ruining marriage. Then goes home to beat his wife, in front if his kid, because supper is cold?
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3477
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Jammer on Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:01 pm

A really dumbass liberal wrote: I would love to see these reams of information on how non-traditional families have a poor record on raising children.  

And I ask WHY?  Facts and data mean NOTHING to a liberal.  It is all about how you dumbasses FEEL.
avatar
Jammer

Posts : 2117
Join date : 2013-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: About time!

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum